David

Charles flipped out on everyone and tanked the price. IOG got almost all the treasury funds, and is focused on midnight. Catalyst and CB Dao are cancelled, stripping funding from all the loyal builders. Treasury gave money to a VC and EVM DeFi consulting firm instead of any of our teams...results TBD. Emurgo fucked up again and left. Taptools and Jpg store quit. Sundae Swap only project Charles supports. Went to rare evo. It was DEAD. Almost nobody there. We pushed a bitcoin/cardano defi protocol to mainnet, but charles kept pushing his own bitcoin project, which i guess is now dead. CF has done almost nothing to help any of us.

As you know, over the last year or so I started re-allocating my Cardano to other plays that I think have more upside. I built a tracker that tracks whether or not it was a good decision, as of the end of July. Currently the basket is leading. Still bullish on Cardano and its performance is very important to one of these projects I've allocated to. I'll be doing a full deep dive on exactly what my move was and I will be tracking this throughout the cycle.

The NCL increase to 500M ADA will likely be approved today. This means that DReps will be busy again for the next few months approving withdrawals.

History will remember this as the moment a president chose a higher standard of ethics than the law required of him. This agreement bans ALL federal officials — including the President — from issuing or sponsoring a digital asset for profit, with real enforcement and real penalties. Thank you, @POTUS! Let's get the Clarity Act passed NOW.

I have changed my vote on the following proposal; please refer to the URL for the reason. (私は次の提案書の投票を変更しました、投票理由はURLを参照してください。) adatool.net/treasury-votes BlockFrost

I voted for the following proposal; please refer to the next page for the reason for my vote. (私は次の提案書に投票しました、投票理由は次のページを参照してください。) adatool.net/treasury-votes AlphaGrowth’s Cardano PRIME Revised Cardano dOSPO and OMF Program Proposal Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano — Road to Mainnet (Phase 1 of 2) Global Order Book connect Cardano DeFi to increase transaction Scalus 2026: Maintenance, Dijkstra Readiness, Interoperability & Application Runtime Net Change Limit: Cardano Treasury (Epochs 613-713)

JUST IN: Charles Hoskinson says "Pogun is realizing the vision and dream of Bitcoin DeFi, at a scale of hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of $BTC. That'll be on #Cardano $ADA, get us to climb up the TVL leaderboards, and start building a respected DeFi ecosystem."

🚨TRANSPARENCY ALERT🚨 This guy is a genius at shooting himself in the foot every time he opens his mouth. So let me get this straight: Input Output takes over Blockfrost, and now the treasury is supposed to pay ₳9,832,979 for it. At today's price that is about $1.63M. We pay in ADA, not dollars, so that is the floor. At $0.50 ADA it is nearly $5M. Then Charles goes on video and reads out a list of Blockfrost customers. P2P, Blockdaemon, Crypto.com, Exodus, Fireblocks, Brave, BitGo, Intersect, Coinly, NuFi, Trezor, AdaHandle, Circle, Revolut, Binance, Kraken, Coinbase, "amongst many others." WAIT, WHAT!? WTF?! Revolut. 70 million users. Binance. Coinbase. Circle. Kraken. And these people need ₳9.8M from us? Let that sink in, and think about it twice. 1) Either that customer list means real money, in which case why is the community paying for this at all? 2) Or the list does not mean real money, in which case it was put on a slide in a funding pitch to make us feel like we are buying something valuable. It cannot be both. Here is what I found when I actually looked. ON THE CUSTOMERS There is no public evidence that Revolut is a Blockfrost customer. Charles also never says whether any of these are current customers, past customers, or accounts that signed up once and never came back. He never says what a single one of them pays. Several on that list are simply wallets and tools that support ADA, and being technically integrated is not the same as being a paying customer. A list of logos with no timeframe and no numbers is not a business case, and the burden is not on us to disprove it. If Revolut and Binance are paying customers today, that is trivially easy to prove. Prove it. NOW THE PART THAT DOES NOT ADD UP By their own account, Blockfrost serves roughly 90% of all free-tier API traffic on Cardano. At the time of the Input Output deal it was described as handling over 100 million data queries per day. That is enormous volume. Now put that next to a customer list containing Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, Circle and Revolut. Any normal infrastructure company with that traffic and those logos is printing money. This is exactly the business model that works. High volume, sticky integrations, enterprise clients who cannot easily switch. Companies get built on far less. So where is it? ON THE MONEY The company behind Blockfrost is Five Binaries OÜ, registry code 14908341, registered in Tallinn. From the public register: 100% owned by Marek Mahut personally. Input Output does not appear as a shareholder at all. Zero employees. Zero labour taxes. Declared sales: Q2 2025 €64,950 Q3 2025 €37,639 Q4 2025 €35,830 Q1 2026 €28,216 Q2 2026 €27,574 Down every single quarter. Estimated turnover 2025 about €184,000. Forecast for 2026 about €112,000. National taxes paid across those five quarters: €73. Seventy three euros. Balance sheet total: around €2 million in assets. Read that again. Around €2 million in assets, against maybe €112,000 of expected turnover this year and nobody on payroll. 100 million queries a day. Binance, Coinbase, Circle, Kraken on the slide. €184,000 a year. Those numbers describe two completely different companies. ON THE ACCOUNTS The 2025 annual report was due on 30 June 2026. It has not been filed. They had six months. This is a company with no employees, essentially one product and a handful of invoices. The report is a balance sheet, a profit and loss statement and a short activity note. In Estonia you do it online and sign it digitally. It is maybe a day of work. Six months. Not done. So we are told Binance and Revolut are customers, but the paperwork that every Estonian micro-company manages did not get done in half a year. And we are supposed to approve ₳9.8M without ever seeing those accounts. ON THE PROPOSAL ITSELF This is the second attempt. The first version, "Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing," was voted down in May. It asked the treasury to subsidise running the free tier. Rejected, and not narrowly. Now it is back, wrapped as a gift. Blockfrost becomes a "free, community-governed public good," source code and trademarks transferred to a not-for-profit, a community-elected board, and Input Output "steps back from ownership and commercial control." Note that last part. Input Output owns it and controls it commercially. That is their own wording. So Input Output owns infrastructure they call critical, will not fund it themselves, and wants the treasury to pay ₳9.8M to take it off their hands. Meanwhile Marek Mahut says publicly that Blockfrost will not continue without this mandate. So which is it? A thriving business with tier-one customers and 100 million daily queries, or a project that dies without our money? Those are two different stories and both are being told in the same week. WHY I AM VOTING NO 1) The money is approved now, but the not-for-profit that receives it is only established in Q3 2026, its board is only elected in Q4 2026, and the transfer of Blockfrost itself only completes in Q1 2027. We pay first, the oversight arrives later, the asset arrives last. That is the wrong order. 2) Input Output says it will step back from "ownership and commercial control." Yet Input Output does not appear in Five Binaries OÜ's shareholder register at all. Marek Mahut holds 100%. So who owns what, and what exactly is being transferred to us for ₳9.8M? 3) No accounts have been published. No revenue, no costs, no disclosure of what a single named customer actually paid. We are asked to value an asset with zero financial information. 4) The company is sitting on around €2 million in assets. Nobody has explained why an entity holding €2M needs millions more from the community treasury, or what happens to that €2M when the "transfer to the community" takes place. 5) The 2025 annual report is not filed. Six months was not enough. That is the standard of administration we are being asked to fund. 6) Input Output owns this asset and calls it critical infrastructure, yet will not fund it out of its own pocket. If the owner will not pay for it, the treasury has no business being the buyer of last resort. 7) The story contradicts itself. Tier-one customers and 90% of ecosystem API traffic on one slide, cannot survive without a treasury handout on the next. Both cannot be true, and nobody has been asked to reconcile them. 8) The ask is denominated in ADA, so if ADA appreciates, the cost to the treasury appreciates with it. A one-time transition should be capped in fiat with the surplus returned. The proposal already promises to return unspent funds. The same logic applies here and it is not there. "Look at all these huge customers" is a slide, not a business case. Vote NO.❌ Your thoughts in the replies, please.👇 Take care!🫡

IO exits Cardano node development Protocol and governance were already decentralized. Now engineering is. @IOGroup is spinning out Haskell node development to community curation and control, closing a process IOG says has run since 2024 and finishes in 2027. Several independent firms end up maintaining at least three implementations in Haskell, Rust and Go. Intersect and Pragma supervise the formal specs, subject to community review and vote. The van Rossem fork lands this Saturday, the first one that @Cardano voted through on its own. @IOHK_Charles calls it the final stage of Voltaire. It arrives with cardano:native near 16 cents and TVL at $70M, which he calls growing pains.

To be clear, we won't be continuing Blockfrost without this mandate. We hope the community sees the same opportunity we do: a chance to do API management better (and mostly for the first time, truly decentralized) than most ecosystems have managed. But hope is all we get to bring to this vote. The decision, and whatever comes of it, belongs to the community.

A new proposal has been submitted to set the NCL at ₳500M from February 13, 2026. If approved, it would replace the current NCL. Should DReps prioritize investment, even if it means increased selling pressure, or focus on fiscal responsibility instead? What do you think?

We’re gonna need more charts.